Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[Quantus]

The hard fork essentially creates an altcoin (Gigacoin) that will inevitably diverge from the old bitcoin (Oldcoin).

Note that users cannot "leave" the old coin nor refuse to "join" the new one. Rather, each user will get as a gift a bunch of Gigacoins equal to his holding of Oldcoins, sitting at the same addresses and accessible with the same keys. Each user can move, sell, hoard or burn each of the two stashes independently, if he can download and run both versions of the wallet software.

Exchanges and payment processors can refuse to work with either version, but they can also work with both, by setting up separate order books and accounts (as if they were two unrelated altcoins) Players will have an incentive to do so, because the alternative is to ignore coins that one owns and may have some market value, or trades that the service could process that would generate some fees.

The scenario then gets murky. Each coin will have some market price, and will die only if its price goes down to near zero. In the previous fork, one of the "coins" was buggy and no one wanted to use it, so it died. In this case both coins would be functional.
 --Jorge Stolfi

[1714988695]

1714988695

[1714988695]

1714988695

[balu2]

If you look at my post I am mostly informing people of the reality of what to expect of what would happen if this fork goes through, I am trying to combat the FUD and constant misinformation about the possibilities from this fork.

trying to shape public opinion basically ... ok ...


"A Consensus means everyone agrees and in this world that's just not going to happen, especially when talking about money. "

I disagree on that. Since everyone is sitting in the same ship once change becomes necessary consensus could maybe in fact be easier to achieve. In the end of the day everyone has similar targets, maybe, in case you're about a good price for the coins and not about some covert shit.

All in all you make a pretty pessimistic impression. Keep in mind others could in fact disagree with you. Just because something sounds logical to you and seems without alternative in your mind doesn't mean others have to share that view.

I have a feeling delaying the issue could in fact be very close to a solution that's kind of acceptable to everyone. 

[hdbuck]

Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.

Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though?
Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place.

If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve?

This seems to be quite a fair point actually..

If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose.

This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right

losing what?

Well i guess everything, alienating the blockchain, making your investment unaccessible or worthless, as in some sort of doom upon bitcoin globally.
Nobody here would want that right?

I just dont buy the sooner than later thing, rushing and taking the risk of splitting the community.

Why would someone bad intended with a lot of money agree to let your microtransactions happen? He could fill the blocks easily and he could be against raising the limit by owning/renting a lot of mining hashpower. What will you do then when your transaction will require an absurd transaction fee to get propagated?

Well for a starter, people investing in large facilities wouldnt want bitcoin to fail, obviously. So they'd oblige.
Secondly, if the transaction fee gets too high, i guess i'll just have to wait for bitcoin's value to be worth it.
In any case im not planning in spending my bitcoins now, and especially not for frappuccinos..

[balu2]

No need to get all angry. I wasn't trying to get you pissed. I was only trying to emphasize that nobody should choose where microtransactions happen if it's outside of the blockchain. Gavin explained why all transaction (big or small) should happen only on the blockchain. Because offchain transactions cause friction and more headache than necessary. We can expand into the subject if you want, but getting all pissed and leaving solves nothing.

is ok. I just thought maybe doing 50 cents transactions on btc with that marketcap is less appropriate than doing 50cent transactions on coins with smaller marketcap to keep the btc chain clean for the big stuff.

I don't see what the problem should be to pass microtransactions down to smallcap tipping currencies. It seems logical to me. And the beauty is: this would automatically occure once fees rise.

That's why we love btc: because it regulates itself.

[Chicago]

If the fork is so damn important... when will the block number of the proposed feature adoption be announced?

The answer: "soon"
The cartel will never give a firm answer of when they're ready to proceed or release a wallet with a coded block number to make the adjustment unless they are given no alternative administratively or have full support from the community.

Kind Regards,
-Chicago

[turvarya]

Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.

Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though?
Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place.

If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve?

This seems to be quite a fair point actually..

If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose.

This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right

So, you want the foreseeable problem to become a real problem before doing something about it? "That is a future problem, we don't have to care about it now"
Do you have any idea how long it takes, before a majority has upgraded to the new code? If there is a change made now, that will take effect on a specific date, let's say 1 year from when the new Version goes public, it will go pretty much seamless.
If a Bitcoin Core version goes online with the new code, that is executed immediate, there will be a hard fork immediate. Everybody who doesn't update, is on the old fork, everyone who uses a client, that doesn't update that fast, will stay there for a while, everyone, who doesn't check Bitcoin news regularly will stay on the old fork.

[hdbuck]

Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.

Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though?
Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place.

If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve?

This seems to be quite a fair point actually..

If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose.

This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right

So, you want the foreseeable problem to become a real problem before doing something about it? "That is a future problem, we don't have to care about it now"
Do you have any idea how long it takes, before a majority has upgraded to the new code? If there is a change made now, that will take effect on a specific date, let's say 1 year from when the new Version goes public, it will go pretty much seamless.
If a Bitcoin Core version goes online with the new code, that is executed immediate, there will be a hard fork immediate. Everybody who doesn't update, is on the old fork, everyone who uses a client, that doesn't update that fast, will stay there for a while, everyone, who doesn't check Bitcoin news regularly will stay on the old fork.

I dont know if it is a problem yet.

But if it indeed arises, then everybody will know about it since they wont be able to use bitcoin the way they used to.. Hence there shall be no 'resistance'.

Plus it gives the devs more time to make everything nice and tidy so it would in the end be implemented quite efficiently and rapidly.

That's all im sayin..

[balu2]

So, you want the foreseeable problem to become a real problem before doing something about it?

you are going in circles. The same shit has been posted here a hundred times now. Not everyone even agrees there would be problems arising.

[R2D221]

Not everyone even agrees there would be problems arising.

The same way not everyone agrees that climate change is a real thing.

[balu2]

Not everyone even agrees there would be problems arising.

The same way not everyone agrees that climate change is a real thing.

now it's 'climate change' - last decade it was 'global warming' ... but it's getting colder.

Conclusion: the smartasses aren't all that smart. Scientists aren't infallible gods.
More questions?

Maybe you admire the scientists and follow them blindly - others don't and think for themselves. Refering to Bitcoin now, not climate change...

Different scientists have different opinions, assumption, hypothesis and way of working. Just because someone says unicorns fart rainbows in the future and that someone is a scientist with credentials doesn't necessarily make unicorns fart rainbows in the future. (same as the unthinkable happened and bitcoin crashed another time in january. That wasn't planned that way ... so why should unicorns now fart rainbows again in the future? I don't believe in a unicorn until i see one)

[Quantus]

As soon as this fork happens I'm going to spend all my new Giga-Bloat-coins on ASICs and hord my old original Bitcoins.  

[turvarya]

Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.

Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though?
Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place.

If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve?

This seems to be quite a fair point actually..

If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose.

This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right

So, you want the foreseeable problem to become a real problem before doing something about it? "That is a future problem, we don't have to care about it now"
Do you have any idea how long it takes, before a majority has upgraded to the new code? If there is a change made now, that will take effect on a specific date, let's say 1 year from when the new Version goes public, it will go pretty much seamless.
If a Bitcoin Core version goes online with the new code, that is executed immediate, there will be a hard fork immediate. Everybody who doesn't update, is on the old fork, everyone who uses a client, that doesn't update that fast, will stay there for a while, everyone, who doesn't check Bitcoin news regularly will stay on the old fork.

I dont know if it is a problem yet.

But if it indeed arises, then everybody will know about it since they wont be able to use bitcoin the way they used to.. Hence there shall be no 'resistance'.

Plus it gives the devs more time to make everything nice and tidy so it would in the end be implemented quite efficiently and rapidly.

That's all im sayin..

You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur. The only other scenario, I see, is that Bitcoin will not be successful and then nobody would care anyways. More success means more transaction, doesn't it?
The problem is, we don't know, when it will happen. Think about, when decentralized exchanges get popular and all this offchain-transaction occur on the blockchain. That could happen this year.

[hdbuck]

Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.

Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though?
Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place.

If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve?

This seems to be quite a fair point actually..

If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose.

This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right

So, you want the foreseeable problem to become a real problem before doing something about it? "That is a future problem, we don't have to care about it now"
Do you have any idea how long it takes, before a majority has upgraded to the new code? If there is a change made now, that will take effect on a specific date, let's say 1 year from when the new Version goes public, it will go pretty much seamless.
If a Bitcoin Core version goes online with the new code, that is executed immediate, there will be a hard fork immediate. Everybody who doesn't update, is on the old fork, everyone who uses a client, that doesn't update that fast, will stay there for a while, everyone, who doesn't check Bitcoin news regularly will stay on the old fork.

I dont know if it is a problem yet.

But if it indeed arises, then everybody will know about it since they wont be able to use bitcoin the way they used to.. Hence there shall be no 'resistance'.

Plus it gives the devs more time to make everything nice and tidy so it would in the end be implemented quite efficiently and rapidly.

That's all im sayin..

You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur. The only other scenario, I see, is that Bitcoin will not be successful and then nobody would care anyways. More success means more transaction, doesn't it?
The problem is, we don't know, when it will happen. Think about, when decentralized exchanges get popular and all this offchain-transaction occur on the blockchain. That could happen this year.

Im not sure what i would consider a success regarding bitcoin.

[balu2]

You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur.

Do you have hard evidence for your hypthesis other than vague projections that may or may not come true?
You are repeating the same over and over again while ignoring the counterarguments presented.

[balu2]

These pro-fork people just run in circles not aknowledging the counterarguments. They just repeat the same shit over and over again. It's really not a discussion.

[turvarya]

You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur.

Do you have hard evidence for your hypthesis other than vague projections that may or may not come true?
You are repeating the same over and over again while ignoring the counterarguments presented.

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
I didn't see any argument, explaining why that growth would stop. Can you show it to me?

[balu2]

You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur.

Do you have hard evidence for your hypthesis other than vague projections that may or may not come true?
You are repeating the same over and over again while ignoring the counterarguments presented.

It's not a hypothesis it is fact, it is numbers. If Bitcoin is successful and transactions increase the block size will increase hitting the cap, this means the next transactions will be forced to wait for the next one, which is getting filled quickly and causing a congestion. There is no hypothesis, this isn't that might happen but it will happen IF Bitcoin keeps increasing in popularity and transactions.

When will it happen? How can you tell the future? Bitcoin can't even hold its marketcap and demand is in decline. So what you are doing is wild guessing on what may happen in the future but you can't prove it beyond doubt. And there have been arguments layed out that show bitcoin will not get stuck even if the blocks hit the limit.

[balu2]

You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur.

Do you have hard evidence for your hypthesis other than vague projections that may or may not come true?
You are repeating the same over and over again while ignoring the counterarguments presented.

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
I didn't see any argument, explaining why that growth would stop. Can you show it to me?

Nobody said the growth would stop, what has been said is: hitting the blocklimit will not cause big trouble because the first thing that would happen would be microtransactions for tiny amounts of money happen somewhere else. So all your doom preaching and urgency is invalid.

Hitting the limit will not render btc unusable - in fact it will clean the chain from spammy microtransactions.

[LeMiner]

You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur.

Do you have hard evidence for your hypthesis other than vague projections that may or may not come true?
You are repeating the same over and over again while ignoring the counterarguments presented.

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
I didn't see any argument, explaining why that growth would stop. Can you show it to me?

This exactly, there will be a time that we run into the 1MB block limit. This needs to be fixed before the blockchain grinds to a halt (maxes out on TPS really) and transactions take forever to confirm.

[R2D221]

Not everyone even agrees there would be problems arising.

The same way not everyone agrees that climate change is a real thing.

now it's 'climate change' - last decade it was 'global warming' ... but it's getting colder.

Conclusion: the smartasses aren't all that smart. Scientists aren't infallible gods.
More questions?

Maybe you admire the scientists and follow them blindly - others don't and think for themselves. Refering to Bitcoin now, not climate change...

Different scientists have different opinions, assumption, hypothesis and way of working. Just because someone says unicorns fart rainbows in the future and that someone is a scientist with credentials doesn't necessarily make unicorns fart rainbows in the future. (same as the unthinkable happened and bitcoin crashed another time in january. That wasn't planned that way ... so why should unicorns now fart rainbows again in the future? I don't believe in a unicorn until i see one)

Oh, fuck. So you ARE one of those people that think climate change is not real. There's no point arguing with you, then.